United States v. Medina-Martinez
This text of 333 F. App'x 271 (United States v. Medina-Martinez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Natividad Medina-Martinez appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for unlawful reentry by a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Medina-Martinez contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by: (1) failing to consider all of the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (2) failing to adequately explain the sentence. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995-96 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
As Medina-Martinez concedes, his argument that the district court violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by increasing his sentence beyond two years is foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998); United States v. Beltran-Munguia, 489 F.3d 1042, 1052 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
333 F. App'x 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-medina-martinez-ca9-2009.